haha wrote: ↑all things are clearly apparent yet do not truly exist ... all these manifestations are temporary, adventitious phenomena.

Leaving aside the super interesting debate about translation, because i bet this translation of tibetan to english is quite bad/incorrect, please in your own voice, based on your own understanding haha, questions:

You are talking about the translation. As long as it conveys the meaning according to the context, I don’t have any problem. Besides, I am not a translator. Yes, someone has translation and proofreading skills; if he feels "this translation of tibetan to english is quite bad/incorrect", he can invest his time and standardize it.

1) What does truly exist (other than our beloved dependent origination)? Does the planet earth exist (for 4 billion years so far)?

From above quote:
"Though things arise, none of them has any independent nature whatsoever." Its meaning is very clear.
Please check out meaning of the emptiness: how many aspects it does cover.

How do you know it exits for 4 billion years?

2) Can something go in and out of existance? Like the human being sidartha gauthama?

For deluded perception, there is deluded experience.
If you search existence, you cannot find existence. If you cannot find existence, then there is no such thing as in and out.

3) is everything an illusion? If no, what is not an illusion? Is happiness an illusion? Fyi in standard english illusion means:
an instance of a wrong or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience. So if all of buddha dharma does not exist, if its all an illusion, then is perception as a whole the wrong way to go?

The text which I have quoted is talking from the fully awaken aspect. The meaning will not convey for general talk, even conceptually, if one does not have general background for this text. Its meaning is difficult to those who have subtle grasping for existence and non-existence. It is just like a person who is burning by passion tries to assert the mental state of “(an arhat) with enemies destroyed, defilements depleted, with desire departed, senses tamed”. Or, person, who has never entered the trance, is trying to assert the trance state. To know the answer of your question, it is better to read Longchen's full text.

Yes understood. I read that book long ago. But before discussing it and the other related books from longchen rabjampa... riddle me this, based on the english language, if this book did not exist then you did not and could not read it....

Maybe, like all things in life, there is both existance and change, both current state and reality of interdependence, no? There after all two truths right? Not one truth and one false ))))))) or?

i dedicate this post to your happiness, the causes of your happiness, the absence of your suffering the causes of the absence of your suffering that we may not have too much attachment nor aversion. SAMAYAMANUPALAYA

Yes understood. I read that book long ago. But before discussing it and the other related books from longchen rabjampa... riddle me this, based on the english language, if this book did not exist then you did not and could not read it....

Maybe, like all things in life, there is both existance and change, both current state and reality of interdependence, no? There after all two truths right? Not one truth and one false ))))))) or?

do the books i read in my dreams exist?

You are truly astonishing--going to look for yourself when you already are yourself! --Longchen Rabjam

Per Buddhism, what does "to exist" mean? Can this be answered (satisfactorily) without reference to the two truths? If so, please do.

Mind is the forerunner of all states, at least, according to the Buddha.

So, what exists is defined as that which can be known. If it cannot be known by the mind, then it does not exist. And conventionally, things can exist as in fallacy or in reality. But in an ultimate reality, things do not exist in the ways that concepts and language imply they do.

nope. you made it up in your mind, in our dreams, we make stuff up )). but when we are awake, (although true "a person paints their world", much like karma), and we read a book, that book exists in what we call phenomenal reality. see "subjective" reality and "objective" reality.

so i think that we understand each other here. what haha is interested in is TBSOP )))) by longchen rabjampa. that book has been an incredible inspiration for me over the years. and i am certain that we can learn more by going into the translation (tibetan to english). so let me find that section which haha quoted. the business of really understanding just how loosely words of differing languages relate, does wonders for helping us to let go of dogmatic belief....

i dedicate this post to your happiness, the causes of your happiness, the absence of your suffering the causes of the absence of your suffering that we may not have too much attachment nor aversion. SAMAYAMANUPALAYA

The English translation in the edition that I have is what haha quoted. In my opinion, it is heavy handed, and has gratuitous extreme language added that is not in the TIbetan and actually makes the correct - incorrect ... But maybe others could share their English-understanding of this quote? How would your translate it?

I would start with... .."now in this life, total causation manifests. yet, still... one's own state of being corresponds to some freedom from that one person"...

i dedicate this post to your happiness, the causes of your happiness, the absence of your suffering the causes of the absence of your suffering that we may not have too much attachment nor aversion. SAMAYAMANUPALAYA

Easier to read? Not sure what is happening with the little circle above the la.... but when you see that, it means that the la goes under the previous character....

i dedicate this post to your happiness, the causes of your happiness, the absence of your suffering the causes of the absence of your suffering that we may not have too much attachment nor aversion. SAMAYAMANUPALAYA

nope. you made it up in your mind, in our dreams, we make stuff up )). but when we are awake, (although true "a person paints their world", much like karma), and we read a book, that book exists in what we call phenomenal reality. see "subjective" reality and "objective" reality.

so i think that we understand each other here. what haha is interested in is TBSOP )))) by longchen rabjampa. that book has been an incredible inspiration for me over the years. and i am certain that we can learn more by going into the translation (tibetan to english). so let me find that section which haha quoted. the business of really understanding just how loosely words of differing languages relate, does wonders for helping us to let go of dogmatic belief....

tomshwartz,

I was attempting to point out your logic is rubbish.

Also Barron's translation is good.

What makes you think you can do better when you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the material?

You are truly astonishing--going to look for yourself when you already are yourself! --Longchen Rabjam

"Though things arise, none of them has any independent nature whatsoever", where does it say "whatsoever" in the Tibetan?

But no question, i and longchen rabjampa are "rubbish" ))))))), we "rub" you (the wrong way)... )))) it is suppose to help....

i dedicate this post to your happiness, the causes of your happiness, the absence of your suffering the causes of the absence of your suffering that we may not have too much attachment nor aversion. SAMAYAMANUPALAYA

Yes, the two truths are never in separation, just like a reflection ( not substantial appearance) in the water. But impression of being there two ( separation); a basis and things, this is not in that way, is confusion. Nothing is separate from basic space. There are no appearances on themselves = not apart of nature of mind or basic space.

However things appear or sound, within the vast realm of basic space
they do not stray from their spontaneous equalness as dharmakaya

Like the Zen master Dogen his moon reflection in the water, so is all inseparable from nature of mind. In that way there is nothing false.

May I be a guard for those without one,
A guide for all who journey on the road,
May I become a boat, a raft or bridge,
For all who wish to cross the water.

Which human beings are “fortunate and connected?” They are the ones who generate love, compassion, and devotion, as well as the commitment to remain steadfast on the path until all beings are liberated. Venerable Khenpo Rinpoches.

"now in this life, total causation manifests. yet, still... one's own state of being corresponds to some freedom from that one person"...

It is very delicate I think such translations because this is about liberation. If this below gives the impression that a person or 'a one knows this' :

all things are clearly apparent yet do not truly exist ... all these manifestations are temporary, adventitious phenomena.

Then how is liberation possible?

Another confusion is absolutism perceiving nihilism.

It seems to me that this would keep the confusion of being there a one who perceives 'a dharmakaya' while being out of it and so being a self on itself while dharmakaya is just our nature. It is not a possession or knowledge or a perception by a person. Rather how all and all appears and is.

However things appear or sound, within the vast realm of basic space
they do not stray from their spontaneous equalness as dharmakaya.

May I be a guard for those without one,
A guide for all who journey on the road,
May I become a boat, a raft or bridge,
For all who wish to cross the water.

Which human beings are “fortunate and connected?” They are the ones who generate love, compassion, and devotion, as well as the commitment to remain steadfast on the path until all beings are liberated. Venerable Khenpo Rinpoches.

hiho malcolm. ...i will do a translation of that BSOP/Longchenrabjam Tibetan excerpt this weekend... Can you please post one as well? Thanks in advance...

i dedicate this post to your happiness, the causes of your happiness, the absence of your suffering the causes of the absence of your suffering that we may not have too much attachment nor aversion. SAMAYAMANUPALAYA

possibble dear friend, of that i am certain. and longchen rabjampa knew that quite well. he was the one that said we should bag the monastic life and live in seclusion. he was a very serious buddhist... ...i think that there is a great deal that we can learn from the dear longchen rabjampa's short life and prolific teachings/writings. one idea is to start with this tibetan and try to translate it. my point, here, is that each translator will add quite a bit of their own ego into the translation... but by seeing several translations, one may begin to see a glimmer of the long dead man himself...

i dedicate this post to your happiness, the causes of your happiness, the absence of your suffering the causes of the absence of your suffering that we may not have too much attachment nor aversion. SAMAYAMANUPALAYA

The three 'bodies' of a buddha. They relate not only to the truth in us, as three aspects of the true nature of mind, but to the truth in everything. Everything we perceive around us is nirmanakaya; its nature, light or energy is sambhogakaya; and its inherent truth, the dharmakaya.

I leave the Basis Space of Phenomena ( okay not) to add a quote, perhaps looking as a contradiction even contradictions appear regularly in Dharma for the sake of all, and I guess it depends on impression, perception.

All phenomena are completely new and fresh, absolutely unique and entirely free from all concepts of past, present and future. They are experienced in timelessness.

May I be a guard for those without one,
A guide for all who journey on the road,
May I become a boat, a raft or bridge,
For all who wish to cross the water.

Which human beings are “fortunate and connected?” They are the ones who generate love, compassion, and devotion, as well as the commitment to remain steadfast on the path until all beings are liberated. Venerable Khenpo Rinpoches.

''What exists' is what can be measured, ascertained, photographed, recorded, and so on. But 'existence' itself is simply a momentary aspect of the totality - and the totality is what is real.

Reality includes everything you can see, know, think about, and an infinite amount more, which branches out into the vastness of space and into the depths of being.

In practice, awarebess of this is always obscured by the conditioned outlook, by the constant interplay of memory-and-expectation, desire-and-aversion, and the many other states, both conscious and subconscious, that are constantly arising and perishing from one moment to the next. This is what gives rise to our normal experience of life moment to moment, or what we call 'my self' or 'my life'.

An empty mind, a mind that is not preoccupied, is intensely alive to each moment and to the sense of vastness which this brings. There is a sense in which one's own aliveness and the aliveness of all that lives intermingle in this awareness. But we cannot appreciate this because of the burden of self-hood, of the weight of who we are and what we possess. It is precisely that which conceals or occludes our appreciation of the vastness of each moment.

And that is because, this moment is much more than 'what exists'. This moment contains all of the past and all of the future. Yet, try to seize it, try to know what it is or name it - and it has already passed. Grasp it, and it's gone. And that is the nature of existence.

The Tibetans created a technical language to handle Buddhist terminologies.

If I may, if the word 'emptiness' were not well established in English and you were doing a fresh translation, how would you translate tongpa nyi? Either in concise form or in more extensive explanation? I have read that this term was basically used by Vairochana during the first translation, and for example Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche states that tongpa nyi is a richer term than the English "emptiness".

Therein is nothing to remove
And thereto not the slightest thing to add.
The perfect truth viewed perfectly
And perfectly beheld is liberation.

The Tibetans created a technical language to handle Buddhist terminologies.

If I may, if the word 'emptiness' were not well established in English and you were doing a fresh translation, how would you translate tongpa nyi? Either in concise form or in more extensive explanation? I have read that this term was basically used by Vairochana during the first translation, and for example Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche states that tongpa nyi is a richer term than the English "emptiness".

Maybe in Sanskrit, śunyatā, but not in Tibetan. Vairocana probably translated śunyatā as "ye 'byams", which means something like "primordial infinity."